EBA欧洲银行-063f3d20-f5a9-49b6-ae58-65b41fc543d7_6页_117kb

Summary of the 3 Level 3 Committees' Joint Response to the European Commission's Public Consultation Paper

Core Content

The three Level 3 Committees—CESR, CEBS, and CEIOPS—have responded to the European Commission's Public Consultation Paper on potential amendments to the Decisions establishing them. The Committees welcome the initiative and are keen to contribute their views, emphasizing the importance of their involvement in the subsequent stages of the process. They believe that the Consultation reflects current practices and aligns with their ongoing efforts to enhance supervisory convergence and cooperation at the EU level.

Main Views

• Importance of Involvement: The Committees stress the necessity of their inclusion in the finalization process of the Decisions and appreciate the Commission's assurances regarding this.
• Independence and Functioning: They highlight that their independence is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Lamfalussy system.
• Avoiding Annual Mandate Reviews: The Committees suggest that concrete projects should be avoided in the mandate to prevent the need for annual reviews. Instead, they advocate for a focus on long-term objectives and tools.
• Enhancing Supervisory Cooperation: They support the idea of aligning, clarifying, and strengthening their responsibilities to improve their contribution to EU-level supervision.

Key Comments by Section

3. SUPERVISORY COOPERATION AND CONVERGENCE

• Mediation (3.1):

  • The Committees support the use of mediation as a tool for supervision.
  • They have developed voluntary mediation mechanisms with non-binding outcomes.
  • Obligatory mediation could be a positive step, but must reflect the current nature of their mechanisms.

• Consultative Role (3.2):

  • The Committees support an explicit consultative role for national supervisors.
  • They emphasize the need to preserve the competence and discretion of national supervisors.

• Information Exchange (3.3):

  • The Committees view information exchange as essential to their functions.
  • They already have existing mechanisms and are aware of the Financial Conglomerates Directive's provisions.
  • They recommend including clarity on confidentiality regimes in any new Decisions.

• Delegation of Tasks (3.4):

  • The Committees support the priority of fostering delegation of tasks between national supervisors.
  • They advocate for a new Joint 3 Level 3 Task Force to explore this further.
  • Delegation of responsibilities is considered a longer-term possibility, requiring legal changes at Level 1.

• Streamlining Reporting Requirements (3.5):

  • The Committees support the streamlining of reporting requirements.
  • They have made progress in developing common formats for supervisory reporting and disclosure.

• Colleges of Supervisors (3.6):

  • The Committees acknowledge that colleges are primarily a concern for CEBS and CEIOPS.
  • They note that CESR is working on similar arrangements under MiFID.
  • They support the Commission's awareness of these developments through its observership.

• Common Supervisory Culture (3.7):

  • The Committees fully support the development of a common European supervisory culture.
  • They highlight the importance of regular collaboration and suggest extending exchanges and training to third countries.

• Cross-Sectoral Cooperation (3.8):

  • The Committees agree with the need for a general framework for joint 3L3 work.
  • They support the idea of more detailed obligations and responsibilities for cooperation.
  • They agree with the proposed approach for the supervision of financial conglomerates and suggest re-titling the Interim Working Committee on Financial Conglomerates (IWCFC) in the Decisions.

• Qualified Majority Voting (3.9):

  • The Committees support the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) and a "comply and explain" procedure.
  • They emphasize that decisions should first be made by consensus, with QMV as a fallback.
  • They suggest that such provisions could be reflected in the Decisions if needed.

• Annual Work Programmes (3.10):

  • The Committees agree that submitting annual work programmes to the ECOFIN Council, European Parliament, and Commission should be included in the Decisions.
  • They aim to finalize these programmes by November 2008 and seek early institutional feedback.
  • They will focus on key priorities rather than detailed actions in their work programmes.

4. FINANCIAL STABILITY

• The Committees agree with the proposed role in promoting financial stability.
• They suggest that a broad reference to financial stability is preferable to detailed requirements.
• They are prepared to provide regular reports and qualitative risk assessments as needed.
• They believe in the importance of task division to ensure efficiency, with other institutions handling data retrieval for early warning systems.

Conclusion

The three Level 3 Committees express strong support for the Consultation Paper and the direction it takes. They are committed to further cooperation and convergence, and they welcome the opportunity to contribute to the finalization of the Decisions. Their comments highlight the importance of independence, clarity, and long-term strategic objectives in shaping their future roles.